"We will consider this topic in four
sections with the following titles: A Church Enclosed, A Church Fragmented, A Church
Estranged, A Church Extended.

A CHURCH ENCLOSED

"A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse"
(S. of S. 4:12)

The Lord's church is a distinct and
separate organization from any other on the earth. The local church is not simply a
fraction or a part of a larger and similar organization. She is loved by God, Christ, and
the Holy Spirit. God purchased the church (local concept) with his own blood (Acts 20:28).
Jesus Christ delegated authority to his church (Matt. 28:18-20). The Holy Spirit approved
the church (local concept) on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 2:1-3).

As we think of the church's being a
distinct organization unlike any other in the world, let us consider briefly her authority
by example.

Example #1: In Acts chapter 6 we
read of a problem arising in the church regarding the "daily ministration." The
problem was solved by a general agreement [today we think of that as a church vote]
wherein they chose seven men to take care of the "daily ministration." The
church exercised her distinct authority in doing this. Being members of this church, they
voted in agreement to select these seven men.

Proposition #1: What if ten of the
members of this church met somewhere away from the regular meeting place and voted to do
something about the problem of the "daily ministration"? Would their agreement
together or their vote determine what was or what was not to be done in regard to this
"daily ministration"? The answer is no.

Example #2: In Acts chapter 15 we
read of the disagreement that came to the churches over circumcision and the Mosaic Law.
When the meeting took place, an agreement was made that is recorded in verse 20. In verse
22 we find that it pleased the apostles, the elders, with the whole church.

Proposition #2: If there were some
in the church who met on their own and came to some conclusions concerning circumcision,
would it have any validity in the "inclosed" church? The answer is no. In fact,
the sect of the Pharisees (verse 5) did just that; but when it was considered in the
context of the church, their decision was refused. Notice also that the persuasion of the
"sect" was not even considered by the local church until their influence had
caused confusion within the local church.

So, in saying that the church is
"inclosed" this writer is advocating that each church of the Lord Jesus is
completely independent of all other organizations and that no decisions pertaining to the
work of God through the churches can be made outside this local establishment.

Keep this in mind as we consider the next
point, which naturally follows.

A CHURCH FRAGMENTED

"That there should be no schism" (I Cor.
12:25)

This very sect mentioned under our first
point (the sect of the Pharisees, Acts 15:5) shows their true form in this chapter. First,
we must notice that they were believers. These were not lost sinners who were trying to
penetrate the church, but this "sect" formed right within the church itself.

They had formed their own clique and had
formed their own sub-theology. They were not teaching works for salvation; they were
simply putting the burden of the Law on Christian believers.

The most important aspect of this
example, though, is that this sub-set of believers had separated themselves from the
church and had taken authority upon themselves to carry on the business of the Lord's
church. Acts 15:24 tells us that they "went out from us." This is the perfect
example of a small group of believers in a particular church who decide arbitrarily to
meet in a different location and appoint themselves to be a body and take upon themselves
the authority to select a pastor and deacons and to serve the ordinances; namely, baptism
and the Lord's Supper.

This is done on a regular and ongoing
basis in Baptist churches around the country. What is wrong with this? Let us consider it
by example.

Example: Bro. and Mrs. Swakley are
saved through the ministry of the Shawnee Baptist Church. They both submit themselves to
baptism under the authority of this church. After baptism, they are members in good
standing with the privilege of participating in various aspects of that church's
ministries and activities. They may now vote on issues brought up by that church. They may
be served the Lord's Supper by that church and may partake of the same on a regular basis
as long as they are members in good standing. They may NOT, however, make personal and
private decisions for the church. Whatever decisions are made come before the church for
discussion and consideration and are voted upon by the entire membership before any
actions are taken.

Now, let us say, that Bro. Swakley moves
to a different city and cannot find a Bible-teaching church to attend; so he decides (on
his own) that he will get a few believers together and start meeting for prayer and
fellowship. After some time and consideration, Bro. and Mrs. Swakley decide that they may
as well have a church in that community; so they take the following action: A preacher
called to come to preach to them on a regular basis. The preacher preaches for awhile and
someone is saved. They determine that the new believer must be baptized, so they decide
that the preacher is to do the baptizing. The new convert is immersed in water just the
way they used to do at the previous church. Now he is a member of this "church".

At this stage of the drama most people
would automatically and without question call this group of people a church. But if we
follow through with this example logically, we find that some problems arise. Following
are some statements and questions that will, I hope, show the problems.

1. To what church did this couple belong
when they were first saved and baptized? Shawnee Baptist Church.

2. By what authority did they perform
their privileges in that local church? Local church authority.

3. When they moved away from the
community of the Shawnee Baptist Church, where was their membership? It remained at the
Shawnee Baptist Church.

4. Was there anything wrong with meeting
with other believers for prayer and fellowship? Absolutely not!

5. Was it wrong for them to call for a
preacher to come and preach to them? Not per se! But a mental attitude is being formed at
this time, an attitude of worshipping and functioning as a church.

6. What is now the status of the
Swakley's membership at Shawnee Baptist Church? By continuing to be members they remain
obligated to the church and are under its authority. Distance does not change that. Names
are not removed simply because people move to a different place except for nonattendance,
which is done because of lack of faithfulness to the church. That is no way to have your
name removed from a church roll.

7. Were they wrong for having the new
convert baptized? Yes. Having their membership back at Shawnee Baptist, they usurped the
authority of Shawnee Baptist Church by asking for the baptism of a new convert on their
own.

If they had lived around the corner from
the meeting place of Shawnee Baptist Church, would they have taken the same authority upon
themselves? Then what makes it all right to do at a distance? Distance does not change
authority.

Do you see what is happening? The same
thing that happened in Acts chapter 15. A new "sect" is being organized and is
going out "from us."

8. Upon baptizing the new convert the
authority for baptism was changed from the church to an individual or a fragment. Making
this decision to baptize, whether it be made by one person or a few, is usurping the
authority of the church; because it becomes an arbitrary decision. Now, does the authority
for baptism, then, lie in the preacher? Some would say that it does; but if you will
notice the above example, the authority is actually wielded by Mr. and Mrs. Swakley.

Mr. & Mrs. Swakley have now decided
to vote without consent of the church to which they belong. Remember, distance makes no
difference in authority. Mr. and Mrs. Swakley have now fragmented the Shawnee Baptist
Church by separating to themselves and claiming authority which they do not have. This is
no different from ten of the men of a church meeting outside of the building in the
parking lot and making decisions for the church. These ten men have no business deciding
who will or will not be baptized, because if their discussion determines that Mr. Back be
baptized, they must first bring it up before the church before Mr. Back can be baptized.
This is church authority.

If these same ten men decided to carry on
church business by themselves and simply stay away from the Shawnee Baptist Church, they
are still wrong in these ways.

1. They are wrong for not attending their church (Heb.
10:25).

2. They are wrong for not giving to their church (I Cor.
16:1).

3. They are wrong for not visiting for their church (2
Cor. 5:20).

You may ask why they cannot simply ask
for their names to be removed from the church roll of Shawnee Baptist Church. That can be
done, but that is a negative aspect. That is like saying that you no longer agree with the
theology or the program of the church and do not want to be like them or a part of them.

Not only that, but if your name is
removed from a roll by request, you are still submitting to the authority of the church
and are considered a disciplined member.

Too, if your name were removed from
Shawnee Baptist Church by request, to what church would you belong? If you say none, then
how do you become a member of another church?

In our example, the person simply places
himself in the new church, and others are added according to his agreement; therefore, the
first person to begin the work becomes the authority for all the actions of the church.
The authority rests completely upon that one person.

You do no become a member of any local
church simply by declaring that you are such. We have many people in the Harrison area who
claim to be members of First Baptist Church but are not.

So we see how innocently that a church
can be fragmented. Christ is against a church schism, and this is what develops under the
example given.

A "CHURCH" ESTRANGED

"Certain which went out from us" (Acts
15:24)

When the foregoing example has been
developed completely, we find a fine-looking building sitting on the corner of some city
somewhere having people attend regularly and being baptized regularly and functioning in
the same manner as the Shawnee Baptist Church before mentioned.

But remember that the authority for all
this church business comes from one person, the person who got the ball rolling. They will
tell you perhaps that the preacher has the authority to baptize, but you tell me who asked
the preacher to come and do the baptizing and I will tell you that it was Mr. and/or Mrs.
Swakley. So the authority for baptism, church business, the Lord's Supper, church
discipline, etc. came from the Swakleys.

This church, instead of being just
another Baptist church on another corner in another city is an estranged church, not a
true church at all. At what time did the Shawnee Baptist Church vote to give the Swakleys
(members of Shawnee) permission to meet together and carry on business as a church? At no
time. They assumed it. They claimed it. Yea, they usurped the authority of their own
church, betrayed that church, and estranged themselves from that church just as the
"sect" in Acts chapter 15 did.

A CHURCH EXTENDED

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations"
(Matt. 28:19)

The Bible offers a proper way for extending the church of
the Lord Jesus Christ to spread throughout the world with her influence and her Gospel.
This in modern times is called the "mother church" method. You will not find
this phrase in the Scriptures, but the principle is definitely presented by example
especially in the book of Acts.

Institutional Authority - A Biblical
Principle

Please refer to Deuteronomy chapter 12.
This chapter shows an ancient principle that was practiced by Israel from the commandment
of God. Notice especially these verses:

Verse 5: But unto the place which
the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his
habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come.

Verse 8: Ye shall not do after all
the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.

Verse 13: Take heed to thyself
that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest.

This same authority is found in the New
Testament beginning with the preaching of John the Baptist and continuing throughout what
is commonly called the church age. John was a man "sent from God" (John 1:33).
John did not just begin a ministry of his own, but he had God's direct authority.

This authority continues to our present
age. The authority of John was given to the church by Christ in Matt. 28:18-20:

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them,
saying, All power [authority] is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen.

Jesus And The Apostles Had John's
Baptism

Neither Jesus nor any of the apostles did
anything regarding the church until they were baptized by John, so John's baptism carried
a very powerful authority. Even the Pharisees demanded to know by what authority Christ
did the things that he did (See Matt. 21:23). Jesus answered the Pharisees with a
question: The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned
with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not
then believe him? (Matt. 21:25). The Pharisees could not tell Jesus from where the
authority of John came. That is because they refused to recognize Heaven's authority (See
Luke 7:29-30).

From One Church To Another:
The Biblical Pattern

The church at Jerusalem was the first
church in existence. When it was found that there were believers in Samaria through
Philip's preaching, the church at Jerusalem sent Peter and John; and they laid their hands
on the Samaritans, and they received the demonstration of the Holy Spirit [authority] just
as the believers in Jerusalem had received. This receiving of the Holy Spirit was God's
institutional sanction. This was necessary because the Samaritans thought that God's
authority was already upon them (See John 4:20).

When Saul of Tarsus was saved he was
taken to Damascus. [See Acts 9:1-19] A man by the name of Ananias, who evidently was
affiliated with the church at Jerusalem (see verse 13), [2]
was sent (verse 17) to Saul that he might pray for him and that he might receive his sight
and be filled with the Holy Spirit. So, even Paul's ministry was sanctioned by the church
at Jerusalem. He was not an authority of himself.

When Paul and Silas were to begin their
first missionary journey, they were sent out by the church at Antioch; and when they
returned from their missionary journey, they reported to the church at Antioch. That is
because they were not a ministry unto themselves, but their ministry was through the local
church. Paul teaches us in Eph. 3:21 that God receives glory only through the church.

So down through the ages a continual line
of authoritative baptisms has existed even unto our day.

If a person, then, begins a ministry
without the express authority of an existing church of the Lord Jesus Christ, then he is a
ministry to himself and has divided the church of the Lord and caused a schism, which the
Lord hates. He has become a "denomination" of his own, and his ministry is not
approved of God. He has taken authority unto himself despite the pattern that God has laid
down in Scripture over and over.

May God bless us as we spread the Gospel
by way of the churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. He promised that no matter how long the
world stands the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church of the Lord. So the
authority of God continues throughout history form the time of Christ. Every spiritual
worker should be very careful to be sure that this authority is taken with responsibility
in order not to usurp the authority of Christ's churches. (Eph. 3:21)"

[1]
Baptist elder Ronnie Wolfe graciously gave permission to include this excellent article as
an appendix to this volume.

[2]
Whether Ananias was a member of the Jerusalem church or the Damascus church is beside the
point. The point is he was a member of a New Testament church and acted with
church-authority. It seems likely that Ananias had previously been a member of the
Jerusalem church and consequently heard of the outrages perpetrated by Saul against the
Lord's church. It seems probable that at the time of Saul's conversion Ananias was a
member of the Damascus church. That he was at this time resident in Damascus is clear. It
would seem that he took Saul to meet "with the disciples which were at
Damascus," for we find Saul assembling with them (Acts 9:19). Obviously Ananias had
authority since he not only put his hands on Saul with the result that Saul received the
Holy Ghost, but Ananias also baptized him. Some think he was one of the seventy disciples.
Extra-biblical writers say he was pastor of the Damascus church. This seems highly
probable, but is not absolutely known [C.A.P.].

Remarks on the Use of the Term
"Mother Church"
by Curtis Pugh

Some Brethren object to the use of the
term "Mother Church." While they are correct in their point that the term
is not used in Scripture, neither are such words as "the rapture,"
"gambling," "rape," etc., but the concepts are dealt with
nevertheless. Many scholars, including non-Baptist R.C.H. Lenski, have maintained that
John addressed the letter we call 2 John to a church under the simile of an "elect
lady" with "children" (v. 1). ("Lady" is nowhere used of a woman
in the Bible, unless here). This "elect lady" had an "elect sister"
who also had "children" (v. 13). If this view is correct, there can be no
argument as to the propriety of the term "mother church."

Furthermore, the false church-system is
given the name "Mother of Harlots." While we would disassociate ourselves
completely from her, nevertheless, the concept of motherhood in relation to churches,
although false ones, is set forth clearly in this instance. It seems clear that the
concept of each church being or having the capability of being a "mother" is
Biblical even if the term itself is not used. The reader will note that churches are
likened to a "bride." Certainly the Biblical pattern is that no church was ever
established without previous "church connection" or authority from an already
existing church - a "mother church."